Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

Page 101 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Just an observation.

How did witness get a good enough look to identify Z wearing a sweater but not get a good enough look to see T wearing a hoodie/sweatshirt? (depending from which side he saw)

Also the witness did not say he saw T striking Z. Could be possible T hit him one or twice, Z fell (back of head injury) and started screaming. Remember witness did not see T striking Z

We need a full analysis of the recordings. Even if all this is true and I'm not saying yet, Z is still guilty of negligent manslaughter because his actions without probable cause lead to the death.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
No, you said that the lesson from the case is that everyone should carry guns. That is just a no.

You don't think that if the laws in Fl. aren't changed that that won't be the takeaway? I better damn well be armed?

If you're a minor you can't carry a gun legally so if you're going to follow the law...

You better be better or luckier than Trayvon Martin was when it comes to evading someone chasing you or you better make sure you use enough force to knock a pursuer out because if they are armed and shoot you. A bad law exonerates them.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
I think you're wrong on that. The point isn't the weapon (fists versus hose), it's the total scenario of what is going on at the time. Being pinned down with no way to escape puts you in position to fear for your life.

Same as being chased and stalked by a complete stranger. Which came first the chicken or the egg?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Just an observation.

How did witness get a good enough look to identify Z wearing a sweater but not get a good enough look to see T wearing a hoodie/sweatshirt? (depending from which side he saw)

Also the witness did not say he saw T striking Z. Could be possible T hit him one or twice, Z fell (back of head injury) and started screaming. Remember witness did not see T striking Z

We need a full analysis of the recordings. Even if all this is true and I'm not saying yet, Z is still guilty of negligent manslaughter because his actions without probable cause lead to the death.

It's not that hard. One guy was at ground level. The other witness might have been a few stories up.
 

Lalakai

Golden Member
Nov 30, 1999
1,634
0
76
regardless of positions on the ground or who was yelling for help, the issue will be who initiated the confrontation and escalated it. During a fight the aggressor could as easily be on bottom as top; a person firing a weapon could shoot from top or bottom position. Powder residue and blow back will give an approximate distance of seperation between the two individuals. Angle of penetration for the projectile will also give indication of positions during the shooting. A serious protocol breach developed when the police did not secure the immediate area, nor did they take blood samples from both of the individuals. If the initial contact happened at one location then escalated at another location, it lessens the credence of self defense as the person would have had a chance to withdraw to safety unless they were being chased. If they were being chased, why not draw and fire at the first contact instead of running away then firing at the second contact point?

As for eye witnesses........even the police strongly recommend to all of their officers, that you wait for several hours before trying to reconstruct a deadly fight. The brain will skip parts, remembering more detail later. For a witness to change their story, often is a result of them remembering more details and being able to piece more of it together.

As for the CCW, it appears that Z was legally carrying a firearm, but was also carrying it against the rules of the neighborhood watch that he was working with. While it wasn't an illegal action it does call into question his judgement and decision to abide by guidelines.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
You all have to be kidding me. An armed 250LB former bouncer with law enforcement training feared for his life after getting out of his car to confront a 140LB teenager. Georgy Boy started this by getting out of the vehicle, there was no crime in progress to validate his action, observe and report is all the Neighborhood Watch is supposed to do in the situation. "Da little black boy was beating on me!" excuse don't wash.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
I'm not spidey but I'd say that the dude has every single right to shoot you if you shove him and get into a wrestling match with him.

If he believes his life is in danger from you, then he is justified in shooting.

Am I allowed to "scuffle" with anybody because they look at me cross eyed? I can claim "self defense"? Doesn't work that way. When things get physical, thats when the line is drawn. If you initiated the physical part, then the other guy is self-defending.

You are fucked up
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
So I'm listening to a talk show and a person who claims to be an actual Law Enforcement Officer is saying Mr. Zimmerman should've waited for the police. Why?

Because any reasonable person when approached by someone in civilian clothes without a badge trying to detain them would want to get away from that person.

Regardless of who started getting the upper hand in the altercation... This is a tragedy that really could have *should have* been avoided.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Just an observation.

How did witness get a good enough look to identify Z wearing a sweater but not get a good enough look to see T wearing a hoodie/sweatshirt? (depending from which side he saw)

Also the witness did not say he saw T striking Z. Could be possible T hit him one or twice, Z fell (back of head injury) and started screaming. Remember witness did not see T striking Z

We need a full analysis of the recordings. Even if all this is true and I'm not saying yet, Z is still guilty of negligent manslaughter because his actions without probable cause lead to the death.

Listen to the witness's answers to the reporters questions. He said the man that was killed was the person on top.

This is more than likely is the testimony that most strongly corroborates Z's claim to self defense and why he can't be charged.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
So I'm listening to a talk show and a person who claims to be an actual Law Enforcement Officer is saying Mr. Zimmerman should've waited for the police. Why?

Because any reasonable person when approached by someone in civilian clothes without a badge trying to detain them would want to get away from that person.

Regardless of who started getting the upper hand in the altercation... This is a tragedy that really could have *should have* been avoided.

Yes, that is obvious.

The thing about the 911 call is that after the dispatcher tells him to not follow him, well, he sort of just accepts that Zimmerman is following him and sort of gives implicit consent and approval to his following Martin. He didn't repeat the "do not follow" warning.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
You are fucked up

Do you know the brain pre-consciously ignores negatives? For example when someone tells you "I don't have a problem with that." more than likely they do. If they say "That's ok" then they're more than likely really ok with "that"


brandonb says "I'm not spidey but..." while he's most likely not spidey. His starting phrase is a tip-off that he shares spidey's... "unique" way of looking at an avoidable situation where a 17 year old minor is shot and killed.

So I do agree with your assessment of brandonb.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
Listen to the witness's answers to the reporters questions. He said the man that was killed was the person on top.

This is more than likely is the testimony that most strongly corroborates Z's claim to self defense and why he can't be charged.


Yes, unfortunately he probably can't... why do I say unfortunately? because I believe that Florida's lax self-defense standards means that even if a Mr. Zimmerman provoked the fight (which is a real possibility if you listen to his call) then all he has to do if he finds that he's overmatched is shoot and then claim self-defense. It's a bad law considering that he went against sound advice.

It's a bad law because now if you're a minor and you've heard about this then find yourself in the same situation you realize that even if you don't have a fire-arm, you can have a knife on you and instead of punching someone who isn't an obvious law enforcement officer you can stab them then claim self-defense if there are no eye-witnesses to the whole encounter.

It gives leeway for a person to escalate or instigate a confrontation, use lethal force when they find out that they can't handle the situation they caused, then claim self-defense after the fact.
 
Last edited:

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
It's not that hard. One guy was at ground level. The other witness might have been a few stories up.

You can continue to believe what you want to believe. All your article have is a second hand info Quote :"A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities." most likely coming from SPD which has lost any and all credibility.

You can go back to all 911 tapes available on the Internet, I don't believe that man's account is in any of the 911 call (even though according to the article, he said he was going to call 911). There is not one 911 call clearly identifying who is attacking who. The best info we have is the voice yelling for help, and I think a great percentage of people would agree it was a high pitched teenager's voice and it's more likely it was Trayvon crying out for help.

But yeah, go ahead and keep talking about one article that doesn't clearly say if it was first hand or second hand account, or what exactly is the source. Go ahead and refuse to acknowledge publicly available tapes that faithfully record the facts during that night. And the fact that Trayvon Martin has no motive, no physical mean, no weapon to do serious harm to Zimmerman, and the most he would have done is protecting himself with his fist from this guy following him, confronting him, when he was just walking home to family.
 

kyp275

Member
Jul 21, 2003
75
0
0
False.

If anything it is clear that psychological profiling should be required before we let nut-jobs with blood-lust have a gun.

I'm sure there's a psych-check before a cop is allowed to work as a cop; we should require the same thing for a CC permit.

ps

18 posts since 03... you a backup pupet for a recent ban or just very hesitant to speak?

sigh, you're sounding just as bad as spidey, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

and no, there's no "psych-check" before a cop is sworn in, you go through your academy, and then whatever the application/interview process is for the department that's hiring, same as any other job.

and no, I usually browse these forums for the technical infos and discussions, but thanks for trying to paint me as someone who gets banned from forums.



also, looking at the thread since my last post, it's pretty clear why bringing gun control into the discussion is a bad idea. Instead of actually discussing the shooting (which admittedly there isn't much more to discuss, everything's been rehashed about 238942730948 times) with a couple of guys who's never going to change their mind, you add another debate where nobody is going to change anybody else's mind that really doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion topic.
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Yes, that is obvious.

The thing about the 911 call is that after the dispatcher tells him to not follow him, well, he sort of just accepts that Zimmerman is following him and sort of gives implicit consent and approval to his following Martin. He didn't repeat the "do not follow" warning.

That's because the dispatcher knows that he doesn't have any authority to order Z to do (or not do) something.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
If going against sound advice means you are the one at fault, then everyone who is attacked at night, alone, is at fault for being attacked.

Just saying...going against sound advice is meaningless to who is at fault for what.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
What I don't quite get is this.

Clearly Mr. Martin managed to knock down Zimmerman.

After he had knocked down Zimmerman, why in the world didn't he flee? Why did he feel it necessary to keep on attacking?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
If going against sound advice means you are the one at fault, then everyone who is attacked at night, alone, is at fault for being attacked.

Just saying...going against sound advice is meaningless to who is at fault for what.


We don't know who started the fight. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman ignored the dispatchers statement "Ok, we don't need you to do that (follow Trayvon Martin).

It's not an unreasonable supposition that if Mr. Zimmerman waited for the police.

A) The high-schooler might've made it home without incident.

B) A police officer would've found Trayvon Martin asked him some questions then let him go or escort him to the address of where he was staying.

C) much less likely but let's go with it, the police officer would've enountered a 140 lb. homicidal high-schooler and been forced to shoot him in self-defense.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
We don't know who started the fight. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman ignored the dispatchers statement "Ok, we don't need you to do that (follow Trayvon Martin).

It's not an unreasonable supposition that if Mr. Zimmerman waited for the police.

A) The high-schooler might've made it home without incident.

B) A police officer would've found Trayvon Martin asked him some questions then let him go or escort him to the address of where he was staying.

C) much less likely but let's go with it, the police officer would've enountered a 140 lb. homicidal high-schooler and been forced to shoot him in self-defense.

but legally that is meaningless.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
We don't know who started the fight. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman ignored the dispatchers statement "Ok, we don't need you to do that (follow Trayvon Martin).

It's not an unreasonable supposition that if Mr. Zimmerman waited for the police.

A) The high-schooler might've made it home without incident.

B) A police officer would've found Trayvon Martin asked him some questions then let him go or escort him to the address of where he was staying.

C) much less likely but let's go with it, the police officer would've enountered a 140 lb. homicidal high-schooler and been forced to shoot him in self-defense.

None of that is relevant to what I said.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
You can continue to believe what you want to believe. All your article have is a second hand info Quote :"A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities." most likely coming from SPD which has lost any and all credibility.

You can go back to all 911 tapes available on the Internet, I don't believe that man's account is in any of the 911 call (even though according to the article, he said he was going to call 911). There is not one 911 call clearly identifying who is attacking who. The best info we have is the voice yelling for help, and I think a great percentage of people would agree it was a high pitched teenager's voice and it's more likely it was Trayvon crying out for help.

But yeah, go ahead and keep talking about one article that doesn't clearly say if it was first hand or second hand account, or what exactly is the source. Go ahead and refuse to acknowledge publicly available tapes that faithfully record the facts during that night. And the fact that Trayvon Martin has no motive, no physical mean, no weapon to do serious harm to Zimmerman, and the most he would have done is protecting himself with his fist from this guy following him, confronting him, when he was just walking home to family.

I listened to the tapes and it is inconclusive.

If you consider the motivations, Zimmerman is not looking to hurt anyone...
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
What I don't quite get is this.

Clearly Mr. Martin managed to knock down Zimmerman.

After he had knocked down Zimmerman, why in the world didn't he flee? Why did he feel it necessary to keep on attacking?


Adrenalin combined with the fight or flight response. Unfortunately for Trayvon Martin it appears no one chose to avoid a confrontation. Mr. Zimmerman did sound like he was getting pumped up when he left the vehicle and doubtless Trayvon Martin was getting scared and possibly angry at being followed by a stranger.

It's a tragedy and the way the laws on self-defense are in Fl. this situation can happen with almost no consequences other than that of the court of public opinion.

In my opinion it's a bad law insofar as it can potentially open the door for an escalation of the use of force. It also allows a person to act irresponsibly and then claim self-defense when they chose actions that lead to a confrontation in which they are physically outmatched then use lethal force and claim self-defense after the fact.

Mr. Zimmerman's father is lucky. All that is likely to happen is that Mr. Zimmerman will have a very very hard time getting to follow a career involving law enforcement or criminal justice.

Trayvon Martin's parents have to bury a child who didn't even get to try and follow any dreams he might have had.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
You just lost all credibility calling someone a "crazed animal" without being there. You remind me of CNN... "He was just an innocent boy." Seriously? How did they know that? I remember when I was 17 and a criminal and "going to the store" I was actually eyeing the cars parked along side the road, seeing which cars had nice radios and which ones did not, so I could come back later at night to finish the job.

I don't think the times have changed that much in the last 20 years. That would look suspicious wouldn't it? Eyeballing the cars? You have no idea what he was doing, and you have only the media telling you he was innocent. Give it up.

Should I care about losing credibility with people like you? You have racists and cop fetishists telling you he was guilty, so I'll stick with the media.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
So I do agree with your assessment of brandonb.

Oh boo hoo! Some idiot was shot and died for fighting with a dude with a gun. Happens every day. The only reason this is news is because it was "white dude killed black boy." Oh the outrage!!!
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Should I care about losing credibility with people like you? You have racists and cop fetishists telling you he was guilty, so I'll stick with the media.

Liberals don't care about anything but playing the victim card, and ignoring facts. You play that hand well.